Videos of people "auditing" the police.

[fncceo]

Why isn’t word out to all police about these guys?

The word is out and police know about them and any cop who follows their training won't have an issue with them.

What they live for, and the only videos you will ever see posted by them, are the ones where a cop doesn't follow his training.

It's not entrapping a cop by filming your interaction, a cop is no different from a person in this case, they can only entrap themselves.

Before engaging with any member of the public, a cop needs to know what his legal powers are in that specific circumstance and to always begin every interaction at the least aggressive level that the situation dictates.

You can always raise the aggression level, it's very difficult to lower it.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why isn’t word out to all police about these guys?

I would think most police know about these guys. However, often the cops are between a rock and a hard place when their superiors expect the cop to be able to stop the auditor from doing something that is most likely legal even if it is annoying.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The word is out and police know about them and any cop who follows their training won't have an issue with them.

I still see many of them threatening photographers until there supervisor is called and tells them to chill. Why can’t the supervisors just train them all to react in accordance with the law in the first place?

What they live for, and the only videos you will ever see posted by them, are the ones where a cop doesn't follow his training.

Maybe that is what they prefer, but I see many videos in which police do exactly what they are legally required to do. Which tells me that the audits are having a positive effect, that will protect the rights of all and improve police/citizen relations.

It's not entrapping a cop by filming your interaction, a cop is no different from a person in this case, they can only entrap themselves.

I agree, I said I thought that when I first saw those videos. I don’t think it is entrapment now. Apologize if that was unclear.

Before engaging with any member of the public, a cop needs to know what his legal powers are in that specific circumstance and to always begin every interaction at the least aggressive level that the situation dictates.

You can always raise the aggression level, it's very difficult to lower it.

Yes, and they seem to be learning to do that.

Too bad citizens have to train police in such things instead of the police brass and sergeants who are paid to do so.

 

[progressive hunter]

Why isn’t word out to all police about these guys?

When I first heard of this, I thought ‘assholes. I’m libertarian, but wait for real cases of police violating people’s rights, don’t try to create them. That’s no better than police entrapment.’

But then I saw show many police officers take a an immediate aggressive attitude toward a person breaking no law at all, just because “someone called.” The country seems divided between people who hate and want to defund police and people who love police no matter what. So cops immediately categorize everyone they meet into one of those.

The idea of a law-abiding taxpayer exercising their rights, for no other reason than to remind people that such rights exist seems completely alien to them. Some of them, such as Kern County Transparency, work in areas in which police know exactly what the auditors are doing and treat them exactly as the law requires. Guess what? There is no trouble in those interactions.

Too bad there is no way to do similar audits to FBI agents. Not sure what they would look like. A couple of people have tried it in front of FBI offices and the agents’ response has been to call local police hoping local police will violate the rights of the photographer.

whats sad is when you see a cop say we know youre an auditor and trying to create a scene and then the cops create a scene and show what an ass they really are,,

there is no shortage of just general interactions where a cop goes completely off the rails on both body cams and the persons cameras,,

 

[progressive hunter]

That’s why police have a saying, “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” In other words, they see themselves as judge and jury except that night in jail is the only penalty they can mete out.

Maybe before 9/11, such an attitude had a net benefit in suppressing the criminal element. But with all the ramped-up hiring and affirmative action, the police we have now often seem to have little interest in stopping actual crimes from occurring.

theres one video where a cop said 20 yrs ago we would have killed him when he didnt realize his body cam was still recording audio,,

20 YEARS AGO I’D BE DEAD! Danbury Police, CT. #shorts #tyrant #police #corrupt #firehim #viral

www.youtube.com

20 YEARS AGO I’D BE DEAD! Danbury Police, CT. #shorts #tyrant #police #corrupt #firehim #viral

www.youtube.com

 

[JoeMoma]

I have seen many officers threaten a photographer with a disturbing the peace arrest, but never once have they actually been arrested on that charge. If they ever were, it would never stick. Constitutionally protected activities are not “disturbing the peace,” because of the way people react to them.

Cops are allowed to lie and they will often try to bluff people into compliance.

 

[fncceo]

If I see you juggling oranges in the park and I think that is weird and that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it, you did not disturb the peace no matter how many times I and others called the police. They disturbed the peace by calling the police for no crime.

Again .. this is where discretion comes in. Police have the right to exercise discretion when it comes to misdemeanor offenses -- but, not for felony offenses.

The other test of laws is REASONABLENESS. There is a well-established legal principle that a "reasonable person" is the basis on how we judge someone's action. Of course, when a case comes before a court, the judge decides what is and isn't reasonable ... there is no empirical metric for reasonableness.

If someone calls police about a street performer juggling oranges, cops will most likely inform you that this isn't disturbing the peace. A reasonable person wouldn't consider their peace disturbed by seeing someone juggling oranges.

However, an irate parent is upset because someone is taking pictures of their child in a park. Whether or not that person is reasonably irate is situational. A guy taking pictures of dogs catching Frisbees thrown by children, probably not. A taking close up pictures of children ... particularly your child ... for an undisclosed reason ... and won't stop when confronted ... being irate is probably a reasonable response.

When police believe there is a reasonable belief that an offense may have been committed, they are legally obligated to investigate. That investigation may lead to a criminal charge, it may lead to no offense being discovered. It may lead to the complainant being charged with a different crime (I have several examples of that).

The first step in any investigation where a reasonable belief exists is to confirm the identity of everyone involved.

For example, in my state, it's not a crime to photograph children in public, UNLESS, you're a registered sex offender, then it's a felony.

 

[progressive hunter]

When police believe there is a reasonable belief that an offense may have been committed, they are legally obligated to investigate. That investigation may lead to a criminal charge, it may lead to no offense being discovered. It may lead to the complainant being charged with a different crime (I have several examples of that).

youre still pushing this lie,, they have to be able to articulate what crime,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The first step in any investigation where a reasonable belief exists is to confirm the identity of everyone involved.

this is also a lie,,,

 

[fncceo]

Cops are allowed to lie and they will often try to bluff people into compliance.

Actually, not when there is no legal basis for compliance. There are certain things a cop must be forthcoming about when asked. For example, a police must identify himself. Except in very specific circumstances, specified under law, a police officer needs to tell you why you are under arrest.

 

[progressive hunter]

Actually, not when there is no legal basis for compliance. There are certain things a cop must be forthcoming about when asked. For example, a police must identify himself. Except in very specific circumstances, specified under law, a police officer needs to tell you why you are under arrest.

this is also a lie,, a cop can lie about anything anytime they want as long as they are not under oath,,

you should quit while youre behind,,

 

[Seymour Flops]

Again .. this is where discretion comes in. Police have the right to exercise discretion when it comes to misdemeanor offenses -- but, not for felony offenses.

Police don’t have “rights” as police officers. Police have powers, which must be carefully checked by laws. If not, police become the law. What is the felony offense of taking pictures and video in a public place? Some places have passed laws banning video taping police. Those laws will soon be declared unconstitutional as they obviously are. Until they are, police do have the power to arrest people who video them, and should not be punished for doing so.

But in places in which such laws have not been passed, the police are still responsible for their oath to the U.S. Constitution.

The other test of laws is REASONABLENESS. There is a well-established legal principle that a "reasonable person" is the basis on how we judge someone's action. Of course, when a case comes before a court, the judge decides what is and isn't reasonable ... there is no empirical metric for reasonableness.

That is EXACTLY why we have laws. So there is no confusion about what is reasonable, but only clear guidance about what is lawful.

If someone calls police about a street performer juggling oranges, cops will most likely inform you that this isn't disturbing the peace. A reasonable person wouldn't consider their peace disturbed by seeing someone juggling oranges.

But that does not happen with journalists taking photographs, which is what the majority of “auditions” are.

If someone calls 911 about a photographer, 911 should tell them, “ma’am, that is NOT an emergency.” But if police arrive, that did not happen.

However, an irate parent is upset because someone is taking pictures of their child in a park. Whether or not that person is reasonably irate is situational. A guy taking pictures of dogs catching Frisbees thrown by children, probably not. A taking close up pictures of children ... particularly your child ... for an undisclosed reason ... and won't stop when confronted ... being irate is probably a reasonable response.

Do those same parents react in the same way to the cameras that are taking videos of the hallways of public schools? Do they tell their banks, their Walmart, and their daycare to stop taking pictures of their children? Maybe we do need a law that says you can’t just video people just because they are in public. Pass it, and then police can enforce it. Until then, I have just as much right to video inside a government building as government has to video me.

When police believe there is a reasonable belief that an offense may have been committed, they are legally obligated to investigate. That investigation may lead to a criminal charge, it may lead to no offense being discovered. It may lead to the complainant being charged with a different crime (I have several examples of that).

The first step in any investigation where a reasonable belief exists is to confirm the identity of everyone involved.

Nope.

The first step is to identify the crime. What crime is suspected of a person taking video in public? No crime at all. Police being “audited” never seem to name one.

For example, in my state, it's not a crime to photograph children in public, UNLESS, you're a registered sex offender, then it's a felony.

What state is that, so I can verify that? If you are telling the truth, which I assume you are, then such
audits will be short and sweet. The police immediately arrest the public photographer and the photographer is convicted. Please post examples.

 

[progressive hunter]

Police don’t have “rights” as police officers. Police have powers, which must be carefully checked by laws. If not, police become the law. What is the felony offense of taking pictures and video in a public place? Some places have passed laws banning video taping police. Those laws will soon be declared unconstitutional as they obviously are. Until they are, police do have the power to arrest people who video them, and should not be punished for doing so.

But in places in which such laws have not been passed, the police are still responsible for their oath to the U.S. Constitution.

That is EXACTLY why we have laws. So there is no confusion about what is reasonable, but only clear guidance about what is lawful.

But that does not happen with journalists taking photographs, which is what the majority of “auditions” are.

If someone calls 911 about a photographer, 911 should tell them, “ma’am, that is NOT an emergency. But if police arrive, that did not happen.

Do those same parents react in the same way to the cameras that are taking videos of the hallways of public schools? Do they tell their banks, their Walmart, and their daycare to stop taking pictures of their children? Maybe we do need a law that says you can’t just video people just because they are in public. Pass it, and then police can enforce it. Until then, I have just as much right to video inside a government building as government has to video me.

Nope.

The first step is to identify the crime. What crime is suspected of a person taking video in public? No crime at all. Police being “audited” never seem to name one.

What state is that, so I can verify that? If you are telling the truth, which I assume you are, then such
audits will be short and sweet. The police immediately arrest the public photographer and the photographer is convicted. Please post examples.

SCOTUS has already determined all those laws to be unconstitutional

 

[rightwinger]

Here is where it pays to do your cop homework. It will vary from state to state, but most states have some sort of "Breach of Peace" or "Disorderly Conduct" law that will make it an offense to "act in an unreasonable manner" or "intentionally disturb another to disturb the peace". These statutes are intentionally vague and difficult to prosecute for just being NQR. But, they do provide for an offense.

Once an offense has been committed, even if there is no intent to prosecute, a police officer can detain a person for the purposes of confirming identity. Refusing to give identity under those conditions can get you arrested.

Someone looking for a cop confrontation would have no legal right to not give their identity under such circumstances and be the subject of a police report.

Cops must reasonably articulate that you are suspected of a crime to demand ID

 

[fncceo]

Cops must reasonably articulate that you are suspected of a crime to demand ID

That is true. I think I said that somewhere.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I've been watching videos of police interacting with the public. There are lots of such videos online. Here are a couple of examples.





There some people called "auditors" that go out of their way seeking interactions. Are such auditors doing a necessary service, or are they simply being assholes making life difficult for cops? What say you?

A little of both. A lot of cops are assholes. A lot of these people are assholes creating conflict for clicks

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I am sure you not providing any examples of this is just an oversite,,,

OH,, the 2nd A says all states are legal to open carry,,
you do support the 2nd A dont you??

I own 3 guns.... yet... I have never once felt the need to "exercise my rights" by taking one my my two rifles and walk down the street with it. Because, well, I am not a dumbass.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I own 3 guns.... yet... I have never once felt the need to "exercise my rights" by taking one my my two rifles and walk down the street with it. Because, well, I am not a dumbass.

If the day comes when you do feel the need to carry one due to police being too busy taking woke training and begging not to be defunded, you will find that your right to do so will not be known, due to not having exercised it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If the day comes when you do feel the need to carry one due to police being too busy taking woke training and begging not to be defunded, you will find that your right to do so will not be known, due to not having exercised it.

Hardly. My daughters family owns a 200 acre farm about 15 minutes from my house. We go there and shoot guns several times a year. I use to be a hunter, but I have ADD... actually have it, not one of the millions falsely diagnosed with it... anyway sitting still for very long is pretty much impossible for me.
I am very familiar with guns, and am a pretty decent shot. I have currently about 80 shotgun shells, 1000 rounds for an AR... maybe 3 boxes for the 9mm.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The vast majority of auditors are punks who are just out to antagonize. They do what they do because they have the right to do it. But I'd love to see the day when an auditor encounters someone (it's not always a cop, you know) who truly doesn't give a shit about his rights and kicks the auditor's teeth in.

Long Island Audit is among the best out there. He can get whiny every so often but, by and large, he keeps it on an even keel...